Damn, Brasas, this always get so - wordy...:joker

About democracy, Brasas, I think you are contradicting yourself. You say that seeing democracy as just another way of organization does not remove inherant values such as individualism. Well I think it does. How are your individual rights assured if any majority is free to do anything it wants to do? For one thing the judicial system would be replaced with lynch mobs. Another effect would be that people would have to fear violent consequenses for speaking against the democracy - such a state would very quickly be ruled by populism more than anything else.

And Brasas, I don't consider the old greek city-states democratic in this sense of the word - for exactly the reasons you point out. In those states civil rights were not universal, and so the state as a whole was not democratic. I know that I've been reluctant to come up with a definition of democracy, apart from Dahls points on polyarchy, and I apologise for that. However I think we need to differentiate between a democratic proces of decicionmaking and a democratic nation-state. The first is possible in for any group of people who share a common respect for the democratic rules (and so for the citizens of communes or city-states), the latter requiers a grounding in some kind of legally assured rights. Onwards to more interesting matters:

Brasas writes:
Quote:
Now the duty to defend citizens has nothing of inherently democratic... it's basically common sense... even the most fascistic, ruthless dictator wants to rule something and will protect it.


That is a huge misconception, Brasas. The difference is that to a democracy every citizen is as important as another - at least they should be, as they have equal "ownership" of the nation. To a dictator the individual citizens are meaningless, whereass the populace is a usefull resource. If a dictator can remain in pover by killing valuable citizens then he will - in a democracy such actions are unthinkable. For examples look to Stalin who lobotomised the Red Army by killing huge numbers of high ranking officers, or to Pol Pot who exterminated everyone with a higher level of education - including doctors and teachers. Neither of these actions were good for the countries, but they helped assure the dictators rule.

Brasas goes on:
Quote:
preemption is not agreession against a non agressive country. This should be obvious to anyone... sure, preemption may be claimed when no actual threat exists... but that should be verified case by case. Again I say that even if there are doubts about the necessity of preemption in a certain case, it is almost only post war that it is possible to verify whose perception was correct, the preemptor's or the ones saying there was no threat. So you see... facts, or substance, are always the arbiters... perception is only important when you want to play shadow games, or subtle diplomacy... honesty has a certain power in itself... it can't be contradicted... if you are honest and don't lie... whatever the perception, you know that no proof can contradict you... this should also be obvious (deception and false evidence aside as the world is obviously a complicated place)


But, Brasas, my point is that this detached and objective view is not readily available in international relations - you and I can sit in Portugal and Denmark and look at the information that we get from independent news sources - we might be able to do that. But is our belief that democracy is the best way of organising politics really objectively better that the view that religion should found the base of society? How can we prove to others that we are more right than they are. To me the answer is quite simple - we cant convince anybody by force, only by laeding by example. Therefore democracies must be "better" than those who oppose them - as discussed in other threads here that is why we cannot just bomb Mekka - and that is why we cannot use preemptive strikes - because even if we may see them as preemptive, those struck will not. And so the use of preemptive strikes is incompatible with the wish to spread democracy - and any rethoric linking those two goal is hypocricy.

Quote:
well I think the US is the only possible nation that can democratise the Middle East...


I agree - but I don't think they are doing a very good job. It may be argued that the war in Iraq has given the US much needed credibility, but that is about the only good thing to come out of it. On the other hand I think a huge opportunity to make progress in Israel has been missed. George W, being as right-wing as he is, is in a very good position to put pressure on the Israelis - those who think that would be "soft" are not going to vote for the democrats anyway. And Sharon is in a similar position in Israel - If Bush twisted his tail he would have to comply - and should that mean that he would loose the next election then we can be assured that his successor would be more moderade - but I'm drifting from the subject here...

Another Brasas quote to get back on track
Quote:
Then your perception that democracy implies attacking non democracies... well I can safely assume that many monarquies in europe feel no military threat at all from the US whereas so called People's Republics may be having a bit of cold sweat... and to me that's good as Qaddafi proved...


Brasa, this is a low blow, especially considering that you have just claimed that the objective truth should always be sought. Even if they still have monarchs there is no doubt that we both consider Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and England democracies - and obviously they are not threatned by the US. However, I am a bit surprised that you like what is happening to Qaddafi. After all, didn't you support the war in Iraq because it is good for democracy? Qaddafi is certainly not democratic, yet he has managed to by himself out of pressure for two billion dollars. What signal does that send? That democracy was never the issue in Iraq. Gaddafi is as much a dictator as Saddam was, but now that he has give up his WMD program and sworn off terrorism no one really cares about that. His oil is now comming into the world market, and in a very few years it will be a really good business. Qaddafi said himself that the two billion dollors were not a penalty but an investment.

However, I think that what is happening in Libya is good for democracy - I am convinced that the opening of markets has a far better chance of leading to democracy than an invasion. And again, because of perceptions - the opening of markets will open the minds of the Libyan people to the fact that other countries have fairer regimes than they do - an invasion is highly likely to create a common nationalism that rallies behind the dictator instead (Russia is a great example of this - the Russians have alway been willing to die for their country, no matter how incompetent their leaders).

You are correct that Japan provides an example of succesful democratication by force - I've acknowledged that a number of times in these discussions. But there are special circumstances considering Japan and Germany after WWII. There were huge investments made in these countries, particularily to keep them from converting to communism. The threat of communism is not present today, and so I doubt that there will be willingness to make similar investments in the future.

Regarding why other countries with more reason have not attacked the US I think you must consider the quite unique way AlQueda works. AQ seems to be the first real global terrorist organization, and one of the first to be founded in ideology (hardcore conservative Islamism) much more than in geography. Nicaraguans have plenty to do in their own country - Bin Laden seems to be aiming for publicity more than actual change, an extremely dangerous "no-hope" attitude.

Quote:
you are very correct extremist groups and nations should be tolerated... unless they represent a threat...

Right - but what constitutes a threat? To me it must involve concrete plans of illegal actions - simply talking about wanting to overthrow the regime dosen't imply guilt here. And as earlier stated, democracies must accept that they run greater risks than others with these things - Stalin could kill thousands of innocents to hit a few rebels, a democracy must not do the same. If it does, then people loose confidence in their civil rights, that may lead to them keeping their opinion to themselves, and the democracy is no longer democratic, as some people are coersed into not exercicing their democratic (as per the definition linking democracy with rights) rights.

qanatoli